Lol, Science is great but there are mountains of conjecture and belief within science. Just ask Tom if you don’t believe me.

Consciousness creates the form. It isn’t random lucky mutation.

JDR - timestamp for the video please, or perhaps the relevant text.

Jane Roberts channeled an entity and pattern matched what he was trying to get across to her. None of what she channeled was her personal experience. None of it was experiences repeated and repeated in a scientific way.

No, consciousness does not create the form. Consciousness logs onto an avatar. The avatar evolved in the virtual reality according to its ruleset. The avatar is subject to the ruleset - genetics, environment, etc. Consciousness can modify an avatar with focused Intent if there is randomness in the probability.

The origins of man are known from fossilized remains and carbon dating - science. It is the best that we can know given the evidence we have. But the theories are based on evidence and science, not belief.

Are you an avatar?

I am a piece of consciousness playing an avatar, but no, I am not an avatar.

So would you say that the you exist within the avatar or that the avatar exists within you? Or Another way of asking the question, where does your experience exist? Within you or without you?

The avatar exists in the data-stream the IUOC is receiving. The way the avatar interacts and evolves is subject to the VR's constraints -- this can include gene mutation over a long period of time. However, that doesn't mean the system can't simulate everything from a single-celled organism until now to a human being.

In a more related note, there was an interesting explorer tape from TMI regarding the origins of man:
https://www.monroeinstitute.org/node/792

Granted, NPMR interpretations into the far-stretching timeline of life on earth may be near impossible to validate. Twice over when the information received is subject your state of consciousness, your level of intent, your symbolic reference frame for understanding things and what the LCS wants to show you. It's actually so difficult to validate even the slightest details of what is being said in numerous conflicting interpretations from NPMR explorers that there is credence in the argument that you should just focus on the now and not be quick to dismiss what we physically interpret through anthropology.

However, there is a ton of conjecture in anthropology and it is largely limited in its ability to interpret physical clues. Also, just like other sciences, they have their close-minded group-think and logically valid alternatives are criticized and censored.

There is no avatar in the data. It’s your interpretation of the data. “It’s just data”. Where does this interpretation exist?

Yes, the avatar is data from the data-stream. My interpretation is also largely, if not entirely shaped by the data-stream itself. It's not a coincidence that all these IUOC happen to interpret the data similarly as being a human avatar in this world.

How does this demonstrate that no random or lucky gene mutations occurred in the biological lineage of the human species?

So the data is what determines your interpretation? Or do you interpret the data?
Indeed, it’s not a coincidence. Why not?
It is not my intention to suggest objective absolutes. There may be lucky mutations, or there may not be, or anything in between. What do you think? Why do you think so?

Previously,

.
They are not mutually exclusive. The data-stream provides the structure as well as the experience to the IUOC.


Your line of questioning has also not been a counter-argument nor supported your point. Even though you keep asking, "Why" you seem to have your own idea here to support your initial pseudo-scientific claim that random/lucky mutations didn't occur - so let's hear it.

My experience is that I interpret the data and that my experience is based on my interpretation. I am not arguing for my experience or against yours it is what it is.

Where to even begin.

You are a chunk of a chunk of consciousness - LCS → IUOC → FWAU. The FWAU receives a data stream. That data stream is your experience as an avatar in a PMR and includes any experiences you have in the dream VR or any other VRs you get. You get data, evaluate data, make decisions, and send data. Your avatar is just part of that data stream. It is your way to react to the data you receive. If you didn't have an avatar, then you couldn't react, (make decisions.) It would be like watching a computer game when you don't have any players in the game. You can only play the game - react and make decisions - if you have a character to do it with.

You can react to the data you get by using focused Intent to change your character if there is enough randomness in the probability wave distribution. If a child is born with severe Down's Syndrome, then all the focused Intent possible will not make that child cognitively normal. There isn't enough randomness in that probable outcome. But if you are a war veteran with PTSD, then through meditation, or other therapeutic activities, you can change your brain back to the way it was before you went to war - or even better. There is a lot of randomness around that probable outcome.

And you can't make your avatar do things that are outside the PMR ruleset without the LCS interfering with the ruleset. You can't decide you can fly and jump off a building and fly off. You can do that in your dream VR because it is within the ruleset there.

Linda I agree with everything in your last post with a slight modification.
Wouldn’t your ability to change within any particular point in time be dependent on the consciousness expressed through your avatar which would effect your ability to evaluate the data and make choices? I agree with your analogies of Down syndrome and ptsd. Certain limitations imposed may require another avatar completely. Then again, where is the point of perception of those limitations? Maybe those limitations are for your benefit, so you can make choices regarding your interaction with them.

We know there are people who are apparently normal with essentially no brain, it’s just that no one knew it. Where are the limitations? Where is that point of perception?

My point is the only limitations that exist are within us, they are self imposed so we can be here all playing the same game together to learn and grow, in other words un-limit ourselves collectively. It doesn’t mean the rules have always been the same or will continue to be the same. It just depends on what game we decide to play tomorrow. At least that is how I interpret the data.

Linda,

I have searched the trilogy for evidence of the use of this phrase and found none. Tom defines random as uncertainty in a process, input or result (page 412 4th paragraph). He refers to probability as likely.

I was required to use statistics in my career and randomness and probability are integral to it. But "randomness of probability" is a phrase I am not familiar with. I cracked open my statistics book and also googled it, but found no use of the phrase.

If I re-write your sentence and replace it with Tom's definition I get: You can react to the data you get by using focused intent to change your character if there is uncertainty in the result likely).

Please explain.